Anybody compared the Recoil Stabilizers directly to the IsoAcoustic stands? My application would be for Focal Solo 6 Be's on top of sand-filled stands. I've had the mo-pads for ages; looking to try one of the newer options.

The Recoil Stabilizer, IsoAcoustic stand, and Mo-pad are all decouplers/dampers but so are cut to size packing foam, interlocking dense foam mats, or a neoprene/recycled rubber floor mat which can be found easily and cost next to nothing. I would think that extra $100 dollars burning a hole in your pocket could be used elsewhere in a studio to greater benefit.

I've got both, just switched from Recoil Stabilizers on my desktop to Isoacoustic on some stands I built for my JBL LSR4328s. To me, the Iso stands sounded better on my desktop, and even better on the stands (MDF & PVC, sand filled etc). The weird thing is that the Recoil Stabilizers definitely damped more vibration, by a mile in my case, but sounded worse. I don't know if that's b/c the back half of the recoil stabilizer was hanging off the top of the desk, probably so. At any rate if you have stands already the Iso stands are pretty cool and worth checking out. Everything seems clearer and more separated, bass more clear, etc.

I've got both, just switched from Recoil Stabilizers on my desktop to Isoacoustic on some stands I built for my JBL LSR4328s. To me, the Iso stands sounded better on my desktop, and even better on the stands (MDF & PVC, sand filled etc). The weird thing is that the Recoil Stabilizers definitely damped more vibration, by a mile in my case, but sounded worse. I don't know if that's b/c the back half of the recoil stabilizer was hanging off the top of the desk, probably so. At any rate if you have stands already the Iso stands are pretty cool and worth checking out. Everything seems clearer and more separated, bass more clear, etc.

If you're experiencing sizeable front to back 'overhang' with the Primacoustics, you're using the wrong sized stand, and I don't believe that it will perform well under such circumstances. The inertia from the loudspeaker is primarily travelling anterior to posterior and back to anterior. Wouldn't you want maximum coverage front to back? It's just a thought.

My primary nearfields are Focal SM8's.

I had initially purchased the IsoAcoustics product.

I had purchased them for the SM8's which I use "HORIZONTAL".

There were problems with it from the start.

In the vertical position the IsoAcoustics product held stable, but the moment that I went to my usual Horizontal position, the IsoAcoustics stand started to sink on the side of the LF driver. I purchased the recommended product for the Focal SM8's and both stands (L & R) started to sag on the side of the LF driver.

I called the company (Isoacousotic) directly, and I have to tell you that I did not find them to be very helpful. They mentioned the possibility of an airpocket on the HF side. Took it apart twice and neurotically assembled it again thinking that I must be the most ignorant person on the planet, and the same thing continued to occur.

I fire my monitors 5 degrees down. So with the isoacoustics product you need to insert feet inside of the piping of the back row to accomplish this.

The only way to balance out the sag was to insert one the smaller of the two sizes of spacers that the unit comes with into the sagging LF driver side of both acoustic decouplers in front.

But wait.... That's not all

Now that I had apparently found a make shift solution, I noticed that one monitor was 3 degrees higher that the other in terms of it's downward firing.

So, while I had now corrected or rather leveled the front end of the enclosure, the L side was level but higher. My monitor stands are perfectly level and of the same height, the floor is level

There were no air pockets. Just what I would consider to be., in my humble opinion, 'poor build quality'.

I called my friends at Studio Economik. These guys always have my back.
I sent them a photo of the situation and they said;"bring them in and we'll switch them out or go for the Primacoustic product, whichever you prefer".

I elected to go with the Primacoustic RX9 downfire +5.

Night and day.

No hassles, no surprises.

It does exactly what it says it does, and it does it well.

You might pay more for the Primacoustic product, but the lack of headache and the build quality of the product speaks for itself.

When you look at the surface coverage of the Primacoustic product vs IsoAcoustic, you will see that the Primacoustic Recoil Stabilizer, covers the entire underside of the SM8. It's very stable.

Perhaps Isoacoustic could recommend a wider model in the future for the SM8 or SM9's, thus offering support at the corners of the enclosure. Perhaps 6 contact points vs 4?

The rep that I spoke to on the phone said; "Oh, the SM8 is a pretty heavy enclosure". Really??? It's far from being a Barefoot.

In stark contrast, the IsoAcoustic decoupler, (the model as seen in these two photos is their recommended model for the SM 8 and SM9) finds it's contact point with the enclosure to be much more central and not at the corners of the enclosure.

It's (the ISO stand) in my experience, much less stable when directly compared to the Primacoustic.

You get what you pay for.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Attached Thumbnails

Last edited by outUVphaze; 26th July 2014 at 09:23 PM..
Reason: spelling, two finger typing lol

If you're experiencing sizeable front to back 'overhang' with the Primacoustics, you're using the wrong sized stand, and I don't believe that it will perform well under such circumstances. The inertia from the loudspeaker is primarily travelling anterior to posterior and back to anterior. Wouldn't you want maximum coverage front to back? It's just a thought.

yes it wasn't ideal, the top shelf of the desk I was using was too shallow to fully support the primacoustics. The isoacoustics worked ok but added too much height and even the larger version was too small for my JBL4328s, or rather seemed kind of unstable. I ended up ditching the top shelf and both the primacoustics and the isoacoustics and just putting the JBLs directly on the PVC stands I build. Much better all the way around! More stable and better isolation

If you're experiencing sizeable front to back 'overhang' with the Primacoustics, you're using the wrong sized stand, and I don't believe that it will perform well under such circumstances. The inertia from the loudspeaker is primarily travelling anterior to posterior and back to anterior. Wouldn't you want maximum coverage front to back? It's just a thought.

My primary nearfields are Focal SM8's.

I had initially purchased the IsoAcoustics product.

I had purchased them for the SM8's which I use "HORIZONTAL".

There were problems with it from the start.

In the vertical position the IsoAcoustics product held stable, but the moment that I went to my usual Horizontal position, the IsoAcoustics stand started to sink on the side of the LF driver. I purchased the recommended product for the Focal SM8's and both stands (L & R) started to sag on the side of the LF driver.

I called the company (Isoacousotic) directly, and I have to tell you that I did not find them to be very helpful. They mentioned the possibility of an airpocket on the HF side. Took it apart twice and neurotically assembled it again thinking that I must be the most ignorant person on the planet, and the same thing continued to occur.

I fire my monitors 5 degrees down. So with the isoacoustics product you need to insert feet inside of the piping of the back row to accomplish this.

The only way to balance out the sag was to insert one the smaller of the two sizes of spacers that the unit comes with into the sagging LF driver side of both acoustic decouplers in front.

But wait.... That's not all

Now that I had apparently found a make shift solution, I noticed that one monitor was 3 degrees higher that the other in terms of it's downward firing.

So, while I had now corrected or rather leveled the front end of the enclosure, the L side was level but higher. My monitor stands are perfectly level and of the same height, the floor is level

There were no air pockets. Just what I would consider to be., in my humble opinion, 'poor build quality'.

I called my friends at Studio Economik. These guys always have my back.
I sent them a photo of the situation and they said;"bring them in and we'll switch them out or go for the Primacoustic product, whichever you prefer".

I elected to go with the Primacoustic RX9 downfire +5.

Night and day.

No hassles, no surprises.

It does exactly what it says it does, and it does it well.

You might pay more for the Primacoustic product, but the lack of headache and the build quality of the product speaks for itself.

When you look at the surface coverage of the Primacoustic product vs IsoAcoustic, you will see that the Primacoustic Recoil Stabilizer, covers the entire underside of the SM8. It's very stable.

Perhaps Isoacoustic could recommend a wider model in the future for the SM8 or SM9's, thus offering support at the corners of the enclosure. Perhaps 6 contact points vs 4?

The rep that I spoke to on the phone said; "Oh, the SM8 is a pretty heavy enclosure". Really??? It's far from being a Barefoot.

In stark contrast, the IsoAcoustic decoupler, (the model as seen in these two photos is their recommended model for the SM 8 and SM9) finds it's contact point with the enclosure to be much more central and not at the corners of the enclosure.

It's (the ISO stand) in my experience, much less stable when directly compared to the Primacoustic.

You get what you pay for.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

I use the IsoAcoustics system with monitors that weigh about 10 lbs. more each than yours. They support the speakers and consistently maintain a 5 degree down angle.
FWIW, It's obvious by looking at the pictures you didn't have the correct IsoAcoustics product or too few of them for your speakers. Firstly, the model shown in your photo is not for the SM8 and/or SM9 as you claim. The SM9 uses the L8R420 which does have 6 contact points but too wide to accomodate your SM8's even when placed horizontally. IsoAcoustics recommends having 2 of the L8R155's or L8R200's per speaker which would have given you 8 contact points.

My 2 sets of NF monitors sit on top of a pair of 4U rack boxes.
One pair are on 30mm sorbethane hemispheres, the others on 8mm neoprene sheet. Both sets of monitors sounded much better with the decoupling but I have to say the sorbethane hemis did the better job.
And neither of these partial solutions cost a fraction of what the stabilisers or Isos did.
But they were both VERY effective in my case.
worth a try before you splash out....

Anybody compared the Recoil Stabilizers directly to the IsoAcoustic stands? My application would be for Focal Solo 6 Be's on top of sand-filled stands. I've had the mo-pads for ages; looking to try one of the newer options.

Which did you go with? I am currently trying to decide between the IsoAcoustic stands and Auralex's Propads. Which is essentially Auralex's version of the Primacoustics Recoil Stabalizer.

Do they create IsoAcoustic stands that accomidate for floor standing speakers?

I have Isoacoustic L8R155 for my Eve SC204s and a Primeacoustics RX7 for my TS107 subwoofer. Also Fame MS-100s (from dv247).

Inspired by this thread and curiosity I did a quick shootout - full songs, mono`d signal panned left then right on the sc204s (sideways, tweeters out resting on top of other 35cm high spreakers). Isoacoustics on short legs.

Isoacoustic came out top for clarity against both types of foam-metal stabilisers here. A/Bing the other two were fairly similar - maybe the Primeacoustic had the edge a bit.

I bought the Primeacoustic RX7 for the TS107 sub as it has a passive radiator underneath which meant I couldn`t use Iso`s. It does a good job there and am pleased with it, the sub certainly benefits. The Fames are to go underneath the isoacoustics instead of books when needed. I`m still playing around a lot with monitor position here.

I have Isoacoustic L8R155 for my Eve SC204s and a Primeacoustics RX7 for my TS107 subwoofer. Also Fame MS-100s (from dv247).

Isoacoustic came out top for clarity against both types of foam-metal stabilisers here. A/Bing the other two were fairly similar - maybe the Primeacoustic had the edge a bit.

Thank you for the response 4tune, your input is greatly appreciated. Other then clarity, did you notice any other pro's or con's to the performance of either? Is it safe to assume that the bass would also be deeper, if the stand achieved more clarity?

Thank you for the response 4tune, your input is greatly appreciated. Other then clarity, did you notice any other pro's or con's to the performance of either? Is it safe to assume that the bass would also be deeper, if the stand achieved more clarity?

When using either type of isolators I have found that the bass doesn`t go any deeper, it just becomes more defined, the projected sound becomes more localised to the speaker. It can actually sound like there is less bass; I guess a combination of reduced reflection and contact resonances. What seems like appealing bass volume sounds like blur when you remove the stands and go back though.